A lot of praises for this drop in FCG and I dont remember seeing it cheaper so I thought I would link yall into it. Delta is good to deal with, quick shipping although I did have one bobble on a part advertised as in stock but was not. It was delayed about a week so I guess they got a little ahead of their supplier. No biggee to me as it wasnt the last part I needed for the build anyway.

I also bought the anti walk pins available. If they are the same ones paired with the "no name" 3# drop in trigger, they are nice with long threads to keep them secure.

Delta's "no name" FCG is sweet as well. I put one of them in my DMR style 20" rifle. They are on sale as well for $3 more. The only down side if you can call it that is this FCG does not have set screws to allow for variance in lower receivers. Pretty sweet, zero take up and smooth instant release with a quick reset.

Free shipping on orders over $120 so grab a couple of more things to take advantage of the savings. They suck me in on it every time! They do have a nice ambi charge handle for $20.

One more good deal is the Fail Zero NiB BCG is on sale for $115.95. I just bought one of these about a month ago for about two bucks more so they are about this same price most of the time. Check around and I dont think you will find one cheaper. I almost bought anoter one for a spare but you know what happens to spare parts!

"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer “universal health care.” Dr Thomas Sowell

whose opinions I greatly respect, that if you vary much at all from the engineering design

of the mil spec design you trade durability and reliability for all the advantages you gain.

Is it possible that these companies who have put much R&D into the design of these non mil spec triggers

have figured out how to engineer designs far from the original, but with equal to if not greater reliability and durability

than the original mil spec design, with the disadvantages of the original mil spec design eliminated ?

Has the manufacturing technology, design, and materials used caught up to give us the proverbial "free lunch", even when that lunch costs

us a huge chunk of change compared with the price of a Mil spec trigger from another respected company ?

I have been told many, many times that the sweet 2 stage National Match Trigger on my RRA rifle

is a breakage leaving me with a club just waiting to happen compared to the durability and reliability of a mil spec trigger.

I was even warned not to take it to a high round training class. Too many people had seen them go down.

Is the conventional wisdom regarding mil spec triggers design and the design of these latest generations of these after market triggers

in that position where the conventional wisdom no longer holds true, especially those models that are said to be designed for "combat" use and able to hold up to heavy duty use and produced by reputable companies right here in the States ?

I would like the collective brain trust here to consider the points I've made, and give your opinion and reasoning and/or experience, please.

In other words, I'm looking for an update since these new triggers have been around for a while. It has been a number of years since

I was counseled to stick with a mil spec design on what is primarily a self defense rifle.

Many thanks in advance,

John

BTW: I guess I should also ask is there something in particular about the RRA trigger design, materials, or QC that makes the RRA particularly unreliable as compared to these 2 to 300 buck cassette triggers be offered these days. There have been several Military rifles made with 2 stage triggers that have always been considered robust combat arms, so I would not think the 2 stage design itself is the root of the concern.

I have been warned by several people on this board,
whose opinions I greatly respect, that if you vary much at all from the engineering design
of the mil spec design you trade durability and reliability for all the advantages you gain.

Is it possible that these companies who have put much R&D into the design of these non mil spec triggers
have figured out how to engineer designs far from the original, but with equal to if not greater reliability and durability
than the original mil spec design, with the disadvantages of the original mil spec design eliminated ?
Has the manufacturing technology, design, and materials used caught up to give us the proverbial "free lunch", even when that lunch costs
us a huge chunk of change compared with the price of a Mil spec trigger from another respected company ?

I have been told many, many times that the sweet 2 stage National Match Trigger on my RRA rifle
is a breakage leaving me with a club just waiting to happen compared to the durability and reliability of a mil spec trigger.
I was even warned not to take it to a high round training class. Too many people had seen them go down.

Is the conventional wisdom regarding mil spec triggers design and the design of these latest generations of these after market triggers
in that position where the conventional wisdom no longer holds true, especially those models that are said to be designed for "combat" use and able to hold up to heavy duty use and produced by reputable companies right here in the States ?

I would like the collective brain trust here to consider the points I've made, and give your opinion and reasoning and/or experience, please.
In other words, I'm looking for an update since these new triggers have been around for a while. It has been a number of years since
I was counseled to stick with a mil spec design on what is primarily a self defense rifle.

Many thanks in advance,
John

BTW: I guess I should also ask is there something in particular about the RRA trigger design, materials, or QC that makes the RRA particularly unreliable as compared to these 2 to 300 buck cassette triggers be offered these days. There have been several Military rifles made with 2 stage triggers that have always been considered robust combat arms, so I would not think the 2 stage design itself is the root of the concern.

Odd. I've had my RRA 2-stage triggers in several high round count classes, and 3-gun competitions.

Never had an issue with any of mine. Are these people who speak from personal experience, or heard from Bob who heard from Fred who thought it's a bad idea?

I say just run the damned thing.

Signature:

Purpose should drive the Purchase......The "one shot group". A way to save time, money and barrel life!

Mil-spec is solely for the purpose of going to war. "True" mil-sec can normally be easily exceeded if cost is no object. The bureaucrats look for costs and efficiency, to a lesser extent reliability, based on a pre-determined set of parameters and values formulated from an assembly of personnel from diverse backgrounds. It has it's pluses and minuses as you can imagine.

Aftermarket manufacturers either make money from junk with good marketing, high quality parts with good marketing, high quality parts with not all that much spent on advertising. Junk companies don't really give a hoot. They will have made their money back quickly or knowing the market as they do, continue to make money knowing that cheap sells. "Quality" companies depend in large part on establishing their street creeds and a solid reputation.

I wouldn't give it a second thought. If you're not deploying, don't sweat it. Speaking of deploying, you should see some of what many of us consider shat parts and accessories being used very effectively by personnel other than U.S. types.

Bottom line, quality speaks for itself and is quickly recognized by users who in turn get the word out to the masses.